Delhi District Court
State vs Surjeet Singh on 20 January, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. SWATI SHARMA,
CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
SHAHDARA, KKD, DELHI
JUDGMENT U/S 355 Cr.PC
CIS No.DLSH020085122017
a Serial No. of the case : FIR No.228/17, PS
Vivek Vihar[Cr. Case
No.542/18]
b Date of the commission of the : 13.05.2017
offence
c Name of the Complainant : Sh. Gurpreet Singh
d Name of Accused person and his : Surjeet Singh
parentage and residence S/o Sh. Kundan Singh
R/o 212, 2nd Floor, Shiva
Khand, Jhilmil Colony,
Delhi.
e Offence complained of : 324 IPC
f Plea of the Accused and his : Not guilty.
examination (if any)
g Final Order : Acquitted
h Order reserved on : 17.12.2024
i Order pronounced on : 20.01.2025
BRIEF REASONS FOR THE DECISION
Factual matrix and trial proceedings
1.Briefly stated the facts of the Prosecution case are that on 13.05.2017 at about 11:25 pm at H.No.217 Shiva Khand, Jhilmil colony, Delhi with the jurisdiction of PS Vivek Vihar accused let his dog bit complainant Gurpreet Singh and due to the same complainant received simple sharp injuries and thus, committed an offence u/s 324 IPC. Hence, the present case.
FIR No. 228/17 PS Vivek Vihar State vs. Surjeet Singh 1/ 14
2. Chargesheet in this matter was filed in the court on 11.10.2017 for the offence u/s 289/337 IPC against accused whereupon Cognizance was taken in this matter and on 23.02.2018, upon appearance of accused, copy of chargesheet and relevant documents attached with it were supplied to the accused in compliance of section 207 Cr.P.C.
3. Moving further, vide order dated 03.08.2018, charge was duly served upon the accused under section 324 IPC, which was read over and explained to the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. It is pertinent to note that on 03.08.2018, vide his statement recorded u/s 294 Cr.P.C., accused admitted the registration of FIR No.228/17 PS Vivek Vihar (Ex.C1). Thus, concerned DO/ASI Jai Ram Meena was dropped from the list of witnesses.
Thereafter, matter was taken up for recording of Prosecution evidence.
5. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, prosecution examined five witnesses including the complainant, Gurpreet Singh. The testimonies of the witnesses have been discussed in the following paragraphs for easy reference.
5.1 PW-1 Gurpreet Singh: He is the complainant in the present case. He deposed that on 13.05.2017, he was going to the house of his sister namely Kamalpreet Kaur with his Jija namely Jai Kumar on a motorcycle with an ice cream for children. He further deposed that at about 11.25 PM when they reached in the Gali of the house of his sister i.e. H.No. 217, Shiva Khand, Vishwakarma Nagar near Hanuman Mandir, accused Surjeet Singh was walking with his dog and coming out of the park and upon seeing him, accused FIR No. 228/17 PS Vivek Vihar State vs. Surjeet Singh 2/ 14 provoked his dog (German shepherd) and his dog attacked on him and bite on his left leg. He further deposed that there is a case pending between him and accused Surjeet Singh and after two days of the incident date of hearing of that case is pending and in order to prevent him to go to the court, accused planned this attack on him. He further deposed that thereafter, accused left the spot and his sister called at 100 number, thereafter, PCR officials came at the spot and took him to the Hedgewar Hospital for medical examination. He further deposed that thereafter, police officials recorded his statement Ex.PWI/A. He correctly identified the accused in the court.
During his cross examination, he stated that he has known accused Surjeet for about last 10 years and after the present incident, no quarrel or fight took place with accused. He further stated that before filing of case by accused i.e. FIR No. 1094/15, PS Vivek Vihar, they had normal relation with accused. He further stated that the distance between his house and his sister's house is about 25 to 30 steps. He further stated that he had purchased the ice cream from a road side vendor, however, he did not remember the distance from ice cream vendor to the house of his sister. He further stated that the ice cream was with his Jija Ji and he was riding the motorcycle and his Jija Ji was pillion rider at the time of incident. The accused was asked that when a motorcycle passes in a Gali street dogs usually chase it. He replied that he did not notice and again said, he did not know. The accused was also asked whether blood was dropped on the ground when dog bitten him. He answered that blood may be dropped on the ground.
He denied the suggestions that dog of accused had not bitten him or that street dog had bitten him. He also denied the FIR No. 228/17 PS Vivek Vihar State vs. Surjeet Singh 3/ 14 suggestions that accused did not own a German shepherd at the time of incident. He failed to remember whether public persons gathered at the spot after the incident. He also failed to remember the exact time when his sister called at 100 number but she made call after 2 to 5 minutes after the dog of accused bite him at 11:25 p.m. He failed to remember how much time taken by the PCR officials to came at the spot after making the call. He stated that police officials took him to the Hedgewar hospital, however, he failed to remember at what time he reached at the hospital. He denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely or that he is not telling the timing of my arrival at the hospital or the arrival of the police officials at the spot as no such incident happened. He also failed to remember the time when he was taken to the PS but after his medical examination at hospital, he went to PS. He failed to remember whether police officials visited his house after the incident. He denied the suggestions that he had filed a false complaint against the accused as accused has filed a case FIR No. 1094/15, PS Vivek Vihar.
5.2 PW-2 Smt. Kamal Preet Kaur: She is the sister of the complainant. She deposed that on 13.05.2017 at about 11:30 p.m., her brother Gurpreet was coming to her house and she was standing outside her house and saw that her brother Gurpreet was coming on a motorcycle with her husband Jai Kumar and accused Surjeet was also coming out from the park / garden with his dog and accused provoked his dog and the dog attacked on her brother Gurpreet and bite on his leg. She further stated that thereafter, she made 100 number call and accused went to his home and after some times, PCR officials came and took her brother to Hedgewar Hospital and police officials enquired from her regarding the FIR No. 228/17 PS Vivek Vihar State vs. Surjeet Singh 4/ 14 incident and did not record her statement. She correctly identified the accused in the court.
During cross examination, she admitted that there is a case pending between her and accused before the present incident. She was confronted with her previous statement Mark X from portion A to Al where she did not make such statement.
She denied the suggestion that on 13.05.2017 at about 11:25 PM, she was present inside the house and heard the noise of shouting and she came out from the house and saw his brother Gurpreet in pain. She stated that she knows accused Surjeet for about last 10 years and after the present incident, no quarrel or fight took place with accused. She further stated that before filing of case by accused i.e. FIR No. 1094/15, PS Vivek Vihar, they had normal relation with accused. She admitted that street dogs present in the Gali and nearby locality. She denied the suggestions that a street dog bite the leg of her brother and her brother came to her house. She further stated that the street light was working at the time of incident. She denied the suggestions that she was inside the house at the time of incident and when the dog of accused attacked on her brother, she rushed towards her brother. She further stated that meanwhile accused went to his home with his dog. She failed to remember what foot wear her brother at the time of incident. She denied the suggestions that no such incident happened at the spot or that accused was falsely implicated in the present case as the accused filed the case against her i.e. FIR No. 1094/15 PS Vivek Vihar or that she is deposing falsely. She further stated that she made 100 number call after 5 minutes of the incident and PCR officials came at the spot in about 30 minutes and remained for 10 minutes and took her brother to the hospital. She further stated that FIR No. 228/17 PS Vivek Vihar State vs. Surjeet Singh 5/ 14 Police officials conducted some proceedings at the spot and they also went to the PS and her brother signed some papers at the PS. She further stated that they remained at the PS for about 2 to 3 hours and she did not go to the PS thereafter.
5.3 PW-3 HC Saurabh: He deposed that on 13.05.2017, on receipt of the PCR call regarding dog biting by ASI Satpal at 217, Pratap Khand, Jhilmil Colony, he alongwith him reached at the above-said spot and on inquiry from the public, they came to know that injured has been shifted to Hedgewar Hospital. Thereafter they reached at the Hedgewar Hospital. He further deposed that IO/ ASI Satpal obtained the MLC of complainant namely Gurpreet. He further deposed that on inquiry from the duty Constable at hospital, they came to know that complainant namely Gurpreet Singh had gone to his house. thereafter, they came back at the PS where complainant met with us. He further deposed that IO/ASI Satpal recorded statement of complainant at the PS and made endorsement on the said complaint, thereafter, same was handed over to Duty Officer for the registration of FIR. He further deposed that thereafter, complainant alongwith IO/ASI Satpal Singh went to the spot and after sometime DO handed over me copy of FIR and original rukka and he reached at the spot and same was handed over to IO/ ASI Satpal Singh. He further deposed that thereafter, they reached at the house of accused, i.e. H.No.212, Shiva Khand, Pratap Khand, Jhilmil Colony, Delhi where IO/ ASI Satpal Singh interrogated the accused Surjeet Singh, thereafter, he alongwith IO/ ASI Satpal Singh came back at the PS and on next day i.e. 14.05.2017, they again reached at the house of accused and accused was arrested and personally search vide arrest memo search memo Ex.PW3/A and Ex.PW3/B. He further deposed that FIR No. 228/17 PS Vivek Vihar State vs. Surjeet Singh 6/ 14 IO/ ASI Satpal Singh asked accused to produce surety as the offence was bailable in nature and thereafter, accused was released at the spot. He correctly identified the accused in the court.
During his cross examination, he stated he had not received any call. He admitted that IO received DD number 60B regarding quarrel at house No. 217, Shiva Khand, Jhilmil Colony Delhi. He further stated that he had not made any departure entry. He further stated that one-two public persons were present at the spot and they reached at the hospital at about 12:20 am. He further stated that on 14.05.2017 they came back at the PS from hospital at about 12:45 am and IO/ ASI Satpal Singh took 10-15 minutes in recording the statement of complainant at PS. He further stated that IO recorded the statement of complainant in his own handwriting and after receiving the rukka and copy of FIR, he reached at the spot at about 2:00-2:30 am.
He denied the suggestions that he had not joined the investigation alongwith IO/ ASI Satpal Singh. He also denied the suggestions that he had not visited at the spot or that all the proceedings were done by IO while sitting at the PS. 5.4 PW-4 ASI Satpal Singh: He deposed that on 13.05.2017, on receipt of the PCR call vide DD no.60B, Ex.PW4A regarding quarrel at 217, Pratap Khand, Jhilmil Colony, he alongwith HC Saurabh reached at the above-said spot and on inquiry from the public they came to know that injured has been shifted to Hedgewar Hospital and thereafter they reached at the Hedgewar Hospital. IO/ ASI Satpal obtained the MLC of complainant namely Gurpreet. He further deposed that on inquiry from the duty Constable at hospital, they came to know that complainant namely FIR No. 228/17 PS Vivek Vihar State vs. Surjeet Singh 7/ 14 Gurpreet Singh had gone to his house. He further deposed that thereafter, they came back at the PS where complainant met with them. He further deposed that IO/ ASI Satpal recorded statement of complainant at the PS Ex. PW1/A and thereafter he prepared rukka Ex.PW4/B and the same was handed over to Duty Officer for the registration of FIR. He further deposed that thereafter, he alongwith complainant went to the spot and prepared site plan, Ex.PW4/C and after sometime HC Saurabh came back at the spot and handed over to him copy of FIR and original rukka. He further deposed that thereafter, they reached at the house of accused, i.e. H.No.212, Shiva Khand, Pratap Khand, Jhilmil Colony, Delhi where he interrogated the accused Surjeet Singh and thereafter, he alongwith HC Saurabh came back at the PS. He further deposed that on next day i.e. 14.05.2017, they again reached at the house of accused and accused was arrested and personally search vide arrest memo search already Ex.PW3/A and Ex.PW3/B and served notice u/s 91 Cr.PC to accused Surjeet Singh Ex.PW4/D. He further deposed that during the course of investigation, accused handed over him photocopy of owner's information and pets' information and same was placed on the case file Mark-X. He further deposed that thereafter, accused was released at the spot. He correctly identified the accused in the court.
During his cross examination, he admitted that he received DD number 60B regarding quarrel at house No. 217, Shiva Khand, Jhilmil Colony Delhi. He stated that he had not made any departure entry and left PS at about 11:40 pm and reached at the spot at about 11:45 pm. He further stated that Eight-ten public persons were present at the spot. He further stated that on 14.05.2017 they came FIR No. 228/17 PS Vivek Vihar State vs. Surjeet Singh 8/ 14 back at the PS from hospital at about 12:30 am and he took 10-15 minutes in recording the statement of complainant at PS. He further stated that he recorded statement of complainant in his own handwriting. He further stated that when he alongwith complainant reached at the spot, no public persons were present and no forensic team were present at the spot as well as no blood sample collected from the spot. He further stated that Site plan Ex.PW4/C was prepared at the instance of complainant at about 01:30 am and he remained present at the spot for about one hour. He further stated that he recorded supplementary statement of complainant at the spot and he had not called the pet dog of accused at the PS for forensic examination.
He denied the suggestions that he had not visited at the spot as well as hospital. He further denied the suggestions that no quarrel was took place at the spot. He also denied the suggestions that accused has been falsely implicated as the cross-FIR No.1094/15 u/s 325/308/341/34 IPC PS Vivek Vihar is pending between complainant and accused person.
5.5 PW-5 Dr. Ravi Shekhar. He is the doctor who examined the complainant after incident. He deposed that on 14.05.2017, he was posted as CMO at Dr Hedgewar Hospital. He deposed that patient namely Gurpreet Singh was brought by ASI Yatinder with alleged history of dog bite by his neighbour's dog. He further deposed that after examination necessary treatment was provided to the patient. He further deposed that MLC was prepared bearing No.1608/17 by him, Ex.PW3/A and the nature of injury was simple.
During his cross examination, he stated that the history of dog bite was told by patient himself and there was a bite mark on FIR No. 228/17 PS Vivek Vihar State vs. Surjeet Singh 9/ 14 left foot. He further stated that he cannot comment on whether all the dogs have same dentition as he is not a qualified veterinary doctor and they don't allow animals to enter inside our hospital.
With the above-mentioned testimonies, Prosecution Evidence was brought to an end.
6. Thereafter, on 14.09.2023, statement of the accused u/s 313 r/w Section 281 CrPC was recorded wherein all the incriminating evidence was put to the Accused. He denied the commission of the alleged offences stated that he has been falsely implicated in the present case as there is a cross case in this case filed by him against the complainant bearing FIR No.1094/15.
Despite opportunity, accused preferred not to lead any evidence in his defence and accordingly, defence evidence was closed.
Resultantly, the matter was taken up for final arguments.
Final Arguments
7. I have heard Ld. APP for the State and Ld. counsel for the accused. I have carefully perused the case file.
8. It is submitted by Ld. APP for state that prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts through the testimony of PW1 to PW5 and as such accused should be convicted under Sections 324 IPC.
9. On the other hand, it is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the accused that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts. He submits that the testimony of PW2 in the court is contrary to the version given by her in her statement recorded u/s 161 CrPC Mark X. He submits that as per statement FIR No. 228/17 PS Vivek Vihar State vs. Surjeet Singh 10/ 14 recorded u/s 161 CrPC Mark X she did not see the accused provoking his dog or the dog attacking PW1, whereas, as per her testimony in the court, she claimed to have witnessed the dog of accused attacking PW1. According to him, there is contradiction in the testimony of PW1, PW2 and PW3, PW4 as to who took the injured to the hospital. He submits that prosecution has failed to prove on record that the bite marks, if any, on the leg of complainant were caused by any dog much less the dog of accused. He thus submits that the accused has been falsely implicated in the present case and is entitled to be acquitted of all charges.
10. The cardinal principle of the criminal law is that the accused is presumed to be innocent till he is proved guilty, beyond any reasonable doubt. The burden of proving the guilt of the accused, exclusively lies on the prosecution and the prosecution is required to stand on its own legs. The benefit of doubt, if any, must go in favour of the accused.
11. In order to substantiate its case against the accused under Section 324 IPC, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that:
The accused caused hurt to the complainant.
The hurt was caused by means of an instrument (in this case, the dog).
The act was intentional and deliberate.
12. In the instant case Gurpreet Singh, the complainant, deposed that while visiting his sister's house with his brother-in- law, the accused deliberately provoked his dog, which attacked and bit him. He stated that there was prior animosity between him FIR No. 228/17 PS Vivek Vihar State vs. Surjeet Singh 11/ 14 and the accused due to a pending case. He confirmed receiving medical treatment for the injury and identified the accused in court. During cross-examination, he admitted not recalling specific details like the time taken by the PCR officials to arrive or the exact events post-incident but denied the defense's suggestion that a street dog bit him.
13. PW2 Ms.Kamalpreet corroborated her brother's account, stating she witnessed the accused provoking his dog to attack Gurpreet. She denied being inside her house at the time of the incident, despite being confronted with her previous contradictory statement recorded under Section 161 CrPC. During cross- examination, she acknowledged the presence of street dogs in the locality but denied that a street dog bit her brother. The comparison of the stand taken by PW2 in her statement recorded u/s 161 CrPC Mark X with her testimony in the Court shows several material contradictions/improvements in her deposition before the court. It is to be noted that in her statement recorded u/s 161 CrPC she had stated that on 13.05.2017, after hearing loud noises outside of her house, she came outside and saw her brother, Gurpreet crying in pain and blood was oozing out from one of his legs. She further stated that upon asking as to what had happened, her brother Gurpreet told her that accused Surjeet made his dog bite me. PW2's contradiction between her court testimony and her Section 161 CrPC statement raises questions about whether she actually witnessed the incident.
14. Further, in the MLC Ex. PW3/A, the doctor had failed to give any opinion as to whether the bite marks noted by him on the left foot of the complainant were caused by any dog, though, in the alleged history written in the MLC, as per complainant he was FIR No. 228/17 PS Vivek Vihar State vs. Surjeet Singh 12/ 14 bitten by neighbor's dog. The said doctor who had examined the complainant and prepared the MLC was examined by the prosecution as PW5. In his deposition before the court also, he stated that the history of the dog bite was told by patient himself. He further stated that there was a bite mark on the left foot. The prosecution has failed to collect/adduce any scientific evidence on record that the alleged bite marks on the left foot of the complainant were caused by the dog of accused otherwise than the bald statement of complainant. Now, as per the complainant and also as evident from the medical advice given by the doctor in the aforesaid MLC, injections were prescribed for treatment of the victim from the alleged dog bite and he was referred to a dog clinic. However, other than the above said MLC, no other medical documents showing further treatment of the complainant have been placed on record by the prosecution. While the medical report states 'bite mark', it does not establish that the injury was caused by the accused's dog.
15. Even as regards the identity of the dog, who allegedly bit the complainant, no investigation at all was carried out. What to say of getting the alleged offending dog examined by forensic expert to connect the injury with the dog. The IO did not even get the dog identified by complainant. Even the clothes worn by the complainant at the time of the alleged occurrence were not seized by the police.
16. Both witnesses PW1 and PW2 admitted prior animosity with the accused due to a pending case, raising the possibility of false implications. The complainant and his sister failed to provide independent corroboration of the accused owning a German Shepherd at the time of the incident, especially since the FIR No. 228/17 PS Vivek Vihar State vs. Surjeet Singh 13/ 14 complainant stated the accused now owns a Pit Bull. The prosecution has not examined the brother-in-law of the complainant who was the eye witness and a pillion rider at the time of incident, nor any reason has been cited for not making him a witness in the present case.
Conclusion
17. Therefore, keeping in view the overall facts and circumstances of this case, this court is of the considered view that Prosecution has failed to discharge the burden imposed upon it by law of proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubts due to the absence of independent witnesses or forensic evidence linking the accused's dog to the injury suffered by the complainant. The defense's argument that the injury could have been caused by a street dog is plausible, given the admitted presence of street dogs in the locality and the lack of conclusive evidence proving otherwise. In these circumstances, this court has no hesitation in holding that Accused namely Surjeet Singh is not guilty for the offence u/s 324 IPC. Accordingly, the Accused namely Surjeet Singh stands acquitted in the present case.
Digitally signed by Swati Swati Sharma Sharma Date:
2025.01.20 16:29:05 Announced in the Open Court (Swati Sharma) +0530 on 20.01.2025 Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shahdara District, Karkardooma 20.01.2025 [This judgment contains 14 signed pages] [This judgment has been directly typed to dictation.] FIR No. 228/17 PS Vivek Vihar State vs. Surjeet Singh 14/ 14